A Game Plan To Quell Avoidance Issues In Strategic Initiatives

Strategic initiatives involve quite a lot of risk taking and uncertainties that often leads executives to avoid dealing with difficult or critical issues that ultimately affect the success of the programmes. How do good leaders identify avoidance and deal with it? Read on.

While situations of uncertainty leads to anxiety, a common way to deal with it is to avoid the issue. Thus, in situations demanding greater awareness, this particular force, termed by noted psychologist Edgar Schein as “survival anxiety” kicks in. It forces decision makers to sort of avoid dealing with critical issues, most of them even being unaware of it.

Roger Lehman, Senior Affiliate Professor of Entrepreneurship and Family Enterprise at INSEAD and John Young, Director of RedElephant Technology, say that by gaining awareness of the act of avoidance, people in leadership roles could minimise this dysfunctional behavior.

Writing in the INSEAD blog ‘Knowledge’, they said avoidance is not something that leaders should strive to suppress or eradicate since it is deeply ingrained human behaviour. As an important signal to keep them alert to the situation, avoidance behaviour could be harnessed to make leaders more effective.

A team leader, aware of this dynamic, would acknowledge the fear associated with the strategic initiative and encourage people to openly acknowledge their feelings, express their concerns and, as a result, be able to move on in an informed manner.

However, if the leader fails to spot or acknowledge avoidance, it continues to operate subversively below the surface, blocking the initiative. However, all those avoiding the issue would continue to view their behaviour as rational and justified.

Lehman and Young provides a real life example to show how an unconscious or semi-conscious push to avoid dealing with challenging issues undercut a strategic initiative.

Tom was brought in as the programme director of a US$25 million-a-year strategic initiative for a North American multinational company, to replace the previous director who was deemed to be failing to deliver.

During his two years at the post dealing with 110 people around the world, his manager was changed three times in an attempt by top management to address the organisation’s inability to realise its strategic goals. Instead of dealing with the silo culture and inter-departmental fighting happening at the senior management levels, they made organisational design changes for “becoming more efficient”.

Such moves are classic examples of “avoidance in action”. Misdirected action and activity help avoid uncertainty and anxiety but make it very hard for the programme to succeed.

While Tom has good people skills, he is largely a technical manager. Likeable, honest and hard working, he is the key decision maker and many issues are sent to him. But it is difficult to get a meeting with him because his calendar is completely full. Being overly busy is potentially another example of avoidance.

With the programme still perceived to be struggling, Tom often finds himself in the line of fire from a senior stakeholder with his team blamed for missing deadlines. The response is by way of changing processes, additional governance committees and other such steps. However, all these measures would also constitute as organisational avoidance of the core underlying issues that the programme is facing. Instead of team and collaboration being the operative words, process, roles and responsibilities dominate. The more processes put in place, the more coordination needed.

ALSO READ: Too Many Angel Investors In Start-ups May Prove Detrimental

Ultimately, the programme delivers through heroics and fire-fighting. The team members become more defensive and accusatory in the way they respond to and ask questions. Factions develop along with cynicism.

Remedying the situation requires as the first step, recognising when avoidance is happening. This could be assessed by finding out if things are getting done through heroics and fire-fighting; whether there is a feeling that the leader and the team are “dancing around something” or “walking on eggshells”; whether the team leader and members become agitated, frustrated or easily upset.

Thus, becoming sensitive to avoidance would enable the leader to open up a conversation on the issues that are being avoided. Simply remaining present and listening to what others have to say could go a long way in helping to reduce avoidance and foster a better understanding and solution. (Image Courtesy : www.texasconflictcoach.com)